On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 7:07:52 PM UTC-7, Isaac Schlueter wrote: > > > The MIT license in node (as well as the MIT and BSD licenses in the > vast majority of open source node programs) explicitly allows use for > closed-source commercial applications. If Dennis wants to keep his > source closed, then that's his prerogative. In fact, he can take all > the modules we create, and use them in his closed-source proprietary > thing, so long as he abides by the extremely liberal licenses that > most of them use. If you think he's wrong about the value of open > source, or its overblownness, refute it with data. (Or don't, and > just go back to cranking out awesome open source software.) > > Let's all remember what open source is really all about. A program is called closed source if it is distributed in binary format only. The open source movement makes the demand that one cannot distribute a binary program using, for example, GPL'ed code without also making the source code available.
But a server side process has nothing to do with any of this! I am not distributing the program... I am interested in running a service like Google (which will hopefully eventually overtake them... but don't tell anyone I said that). Is anyone seriously demanding Google to freely distribute all of their painstakingly developed search algorithms? Not likely! The basic fact is that this thing is the result of years and years of absolute psychological warfare between me and my computers. And given the fact that robust NatLang Processing (weak AI) is something of a holy grail for tech enthusiasts, the stakes in all of this are quite big. I am not saying that releasing the code for this won't ever happen. But I am saying that releasing code is a very major decision that should never be taken lightly. All I do know is that now is not the time. But I will talk about it. I won't want to give away too many of the technicals in an open forum, but I will give some of them away to people who I can trust. And in order to me to be able to trust someone fully, I have to feel that they actually have an interest in the problems surrounding NLP. The Net is absolutely littered with freely available NLP projects, code and all . They are just not interesting. But you know what is interesting? A site with a lone input box on a white background with a snazzy, colorful logo above it (sound familiar?) that "just works" as advertised. I want to get something like that on the site pretty soon. Now that I'm pretty well done with the hair-pulling aspects of my coding, I can start having fun with putting variety into the thing (giving it the "wow factor"). Different kinds of words, statements, sense checking, etc. This kind of stuff should not be very difficult for any competent programmer. That's what I really want to start getting on the same wavelength with people around here. Stop thinking that this thing has to be some kind of end-all-be-all killer app from the outset. I mean, there are so many things to be done. I want to be able to translate natural ways of referring to time points (last week, the day after tomorrow, etc) into their precise Unix timestamps. Not very difficult work, but it's something that really should start getting worked on. I really feel that this thing could give quite a few of you out there a comfortable living. This could open up totally new vistas of the tech sector. This has the potential of going places pretty quickly, and the earlier that people get in on it, the greater the potential for reward. Dennis, since you came here ostensibly trying to raise interest among > other developers (and have been mostly successful, reading through the > thread), I would suggest re-thinking your approach somewhat. I'm not > talking about what's right or wrong, merely what's effective. Many > people come to a project like Node.js because they feel strongly about > open source software. If your goal is to recruit them, you should > think about the effects that your words have. If you want to recruit > developers who *aren't* passionate about open source software, then > you're in the wrong place. > > I've already been told more than once to rethink/change my approach. Seriously? I mean, let's get serious here. The only time I get snarky is when people get pushy with their demands to just hand out something that has resulted from years of torment. This just is not any old program. It just isn't. Period. Again, I have to reiterate that there is a vast difference between the philosophy of open source as espoused by Eric Raymond, Richard Stallman and company and the reality of people actually opening up source code in order to actually *improve* it. Please someone break open the source for emacs right now and make it better. I dare you. My philosophical views are always changing. Conservative, liberal, whatever, blah blah. I'm just not dealing with any of it now. This is a huge technical challenge. That's all. At this point, I don't care if you sit in trees for months on end to save them from getting cut down or if you are a dues paying member of the NRA. I really don't. -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
